gsc_list_sitemaps

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does, but omits details like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if site not in GSC), or output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of sitemap URLs and statuses) or how to interpret results. Sibling tools are not differentiated, and the simple operation still benefits from behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (site_url clearly described). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. No extra parameter elaboration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing all sitemaps for a site in GSC. It uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('sitemaps submitted for a site'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_submit_sitemap and gsc_list_sites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gsc_submit_sitemap or gsc_search_analytics). It does not mention prerequisites like site verification or context such as needing to list sitemaps before submitting.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.